TheDude

You can't just look at the runs scored to determine a bottom line. The walk rate and pitch count were indicative of deeper problems. Hill seriously walked a tight rope this year despite the good BAA and OPS against. You just can't go from a 2.91 K:BB ratio to a 0.83 K:BB ratio and expect to sustain success. And 4 pitches per PA with a .360 OBP against leads to 100 pitches by the 6th inning.

I want people to stop trying to break what isn't broken. I also want to see Marmol straightened out by the time the playoffs start.

Am I the only one who thinks thats a terrible comparison? No you're not. And no I wouldn't make that trade. Neither would the Rockies, unless controlled by an XBOX with the no AI trade flag turned on.

Gallagher looks right at home in an A's uniform. They never have a shortage of can't-quite-grow-facial-hair -but-this-is-what-I-got-anyway guys out there.

Exactly. Works for me. I'll drive the hour to check out Murton again in Tampa.

Need to move him to the NL West. Marquis could have a decent couple of years pitching to any of SD, LA, or SF regularly.

I doubt very much the Cubs do anything else. The guys they gave up for Harden represented most of the 'package' ready guys close or at the bigs we all thought could get traded. Now the only names left at AAA or higher are: Pie - who likely assumes a need role next year when Johnson/Edmonds are gone Marshall - a guy the team needs right now as the 6th starter Hill - obviously not trade ready right now, and if he comes back dominant in 2009 the rotation looks killer Cedeno - not sure how many teams are truly impressed with Ronny Hoff - is there actually a market for him? This team is already solid. I wouldn't part with the few commodities left for marginal gains at this stage. Let the lower guys like Vitters develop and keep the remaning AAA, AAAA, and MLB role players for the off-season or next year.

I've been in the middle of a move all week, so I didn't really get to read and appreciate this deal. Most of my time on these boards is here in transactions, so I wish I hadn't missed the buzz here. My bottom line here: Hendry did a fantastic job. For Hendry to be able to spin Gallagher as a center-piece was really the key the whole thing. I hope Gallagher does well out there. Many people around here didn't think Murton had any value left after the way the franchise handled him. But that more proves that people over-analyze the wrong things - Murton still does what he does, which is hit a lot of singles and walk at decent clip. I still contend Murton's offensive skill-set is ideal for a 2B, but I obviously hope he makes it in the bigs as a corner OF. I consider Patterson and Donaldson as throw-ins. Patterson, like Murton, is a guy who needs to figure how to match his offensive skills to a position he can play at the bigs. At this point, I don't even know what position Patterson gets advertised at. I feel like both these will get bumped from the OF by anyone with more power, but who knows. Maybe that isn't true on a mid-market club. Now, I just can't wait to see Harden-Marmol-Wood combo completely dominate a game. Man that is going to be sweet.

I wonder what Buster Olney must be thinking right now after that blog this morning.

It should be first noted that the quoted text (and the insider piece) is Buster Olney, not Mariotti. Olney makes a reference to Mariotti's article. Second, Olney is strictly giving his blog opinion, not citing any sources (from Oakland or otherwise) to back his assertion that the Cubs do not have what it takes to get Harden. This is about the third or fourth time Olney has taken the stance that the Cubs have no viable trade commodities for the deadline when it comes to marquee players. In previous assertions he may have generically cited 'rival GMs in the NL' or something similar, I can't recall. But bottom line is the blog is his opinion and comes with no insider sources.

Here's a news flash: Tim Hudson is good. He's a lock to give 200 IP, a 3.5 ERA, and solid whip, k:bb, and OPS against. He had one bad season in 2006. But it's clear if you look around 2006 at 2004-2005, and 2007-2008, that 2006 was the exception. Harden might the 'sexier' name because of potential, but Hudson comes with less risk and clear #2 numbers. Either would be awesome in a Cubs uniform.

People have to be careful with trying to figure out Beane. He isn't as one-sided a GM as painted out to be. Oakland's recent interest in Willy Taveras, the anti-sabre poster boy next to Pierre, should prove that. Oakland has a ton of holes and a desire to fill many cheaply. A guy like Colvin could very well grab Beane's attention.

It would seem to fit this 2008 Cubs team to see Hill get a September call-up and own the league, bumping Marquis from the rotation for the playoffs.

This season his split has been skewed towards home, no question. There is a 2+ ERA difference. His 3-year split from 2005-2007 however shows only a .23 ERA difference, so I'm guessing this year is the anomaly. Regardless the splits, he is still a guy overall that gives you a 2:1 K:BB ratio with under .700 OPS against.

Instead of trying to get the best pitcher we can, we're going to go after a washed up lefty, because Lou wants two lefties in the rotation. Yeah because the term 'Plan C' definitely equates to 'instead of trying to get the best pitcher we can'.

Joe Morgan is not a Cubs fan. I think it goes back to his playing days, though I have nothing to back up that sentiment. Maybe it's a bleed-out from his Sandberg hangup. Who knows. I do watch SNB almost every week and a lot of the BBT nightly shows. And anytime the Cubs are having great success and Morgan is in the conversation, he is the dissenter, always talking about Pujols and the Cardinals first, sometimes the Brewers second.

Following up on the quote from Gammons above, his blog had a little bit more information. - The note about the Cubs not having what it takes to get Sabathia appears to be just Gammons own personal opinion, not a quote or summary from Shapiro. - He mentions the Cubs continue to monitor Harden. He also mentions that Nick Swisher thinks Harden will be dealt as a starter for a pennant run somewhere, but that Harden's future is as a closer. - There are a couple of quotes/abstracts in the blog about the Cubs keeping Gallagher. There is a mention that Piniella is close to being sold on Gallagher as a fixture in the rotation. - He mentions yet again that the Cubs are still talking Murton for Wolf (I still can't figure out who sees this as more than a lateral move). - He mentions the Devil Rays want a RH OF and they like Murton as an alternative to Nady, who appears to be their first choice. My opinion remains the same: don't deal for a starter that doesn't project into a 3-man rotation. Whoever the Cubs get needs to be good enough to displace either Dempster or Lilly in a 3-man scenario. At this point, I'm thinking Sabathia isn't a reality. Gallagher is the top chip right now. The Cubs comments about Gallagher and his future in the rotation seem to infer he is off the table. I would think Gallagher would have to be included to Sabathia. What I find most frustrating about the Cubs is their young starting pitching is on the verge of being good, but just not good enough for trades. Hill, Marshall, and Gallagher all seem to be good enough at peak to be #3 guys at least, but not good enough to grab the attention of teams that are selling big names at the deadline.

You didn't watch the game I watched. He was very sharp the first two innings. The first really solid hit against him was Dye in the 3rd, and in fact, up until that point I thought he was out-pitching Contreras, despite being down 3-0. He had been sharp with most hits against coming on good pitches, mostly just off the plate outside. Quentin was lucky on both the single and the double and Cabrera got two hits on excellent pitches. He fell apart after that (faced only three more batters), but it was pretty evident by then the game wasn't going to be a good one for the Cubs, as the defense was terrible and the Cubs weren't taking advantage on offense.

The box score doesn't show it, but Dempster actually pitched well in the last game, at least until the defense failed him. It has been a while since I've seen a team getting as lucky off a pitcher as the White Sox did off Dempster Friday. The Sox continually got hits off of pitcher's pitches, not hanging or middle-of-the-plate mistakes. I wouldn't worry about Dempster. With an actual LF (Patterson is simply horrible) and a standard variation of the BABIP off Dempster, the Sox do not come close to 8 Runs off Dempster.

I think the Cubs can sweep this series if they let the Giants pitchers pitch themselves out of the game. If the team is patient at the plate, they should win all 4 games.

The problem with last night's game was the defense and Marshall's inability to recover from not getting border line calls. The young guys made some mistakes, but nothing alarming overall.

I don't know. All pitchers in ST go through some tinkering and I don't think any them ever expect to be immune to it. You can always improve. I've worked with some guys like Hill in other 'sports' that consider mechanics (bowling, golf) and I've not encountered anyone that couldn't quickly return to their comfort mechanics (many even subconsciously). Returning to what worked is big confidence boost for guys with issues, so I just don't see how Hill couldn't have ended ST back in his zone. Interestingly, the same debate applies with Soriano and his lead-off spot. I find it odd some folks on the board sit on opposite sides of the fence for Soriano and Hill on the confidence/comfort issue

What I didn't like when he was up with the Cubs was his tendency to pull everything....or try too. I think that is what they were talking about regarding the lead foot. I haven't seen him enough to watch his centering of the ball, what did they say was stopping that? His biggest issue at the big league level was pitch recognition. I don't recall ever seeing a player take so many strikes and swing at so many balls. I'm glad he is working on a quicker stroke. It will make him a better 2-strike hitter. But if he doesn't see the strike zone better, I'm not sure he's going to ever truly break out to potential.

Lou didn't "come around" to anything. He had a prescribed desire for the 5-hole hitter that superceded the desire for the 2-hole hitter. Then the team acquired Edmonds to satisfy Lou - but not immediately. Before Piniella considered moving Fukudome out of the 5-hole for Edmonds, the team had to see if Edmonds was going to produce. So Edmonds got a lot of pt and we've seen a lot of experimentation with the line-up the last few weeks, but the bottom line is Edmonds has produced and now Piniella has the confidence to move Fukudome and put Edmonds in the 5-hole, which is what the organization intended all along when the acquired Edmonds.

Pretty damn good. I think the maintaining variables might be different than what caused the initial problems. Perhaps changing Hills mechanics was the major cause of his problems at the onset. However, I have a hard time believe that those changes are maintaining the problem. I think it is partially "mental" but mostly physical. I have no idea how to correct those problems. I agree with you here. If they changed Hill's mechanics, and it wasn't working out, then you would think he could change back to what did work for 1.5 years prior in the bigs (plus the time he had in the minors with those mechanics). I'm not buying the argument that once changed, he's been ruined forever. The old, successful mechanics should have been relatively easy to recapture. Hill had a reputation before his big league time of having some concentration problems. I'm much more inclined to think he's lost his confidence and now his desire before believing a change made by LR ruined him for good.